Dedicated to the advancement of the State of Indiana by re-affirming our state's constitutional principles that: all people are created equal; no religious test shall be imposed on our public officials and offices of trust; and no special privileges or immunities shall be granted to any class of citizens which are not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Advance Indiana, LLC. Copyright 2005-13. All rights reserved.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

More On Councilors' Personal Stake In Tax Increase Vote

Abdul Hakim-Shabazzjoins the chorus questioning whether members of the City-County Council who have a personal stake in the outcome of Mayor Peterson's proposed 65% income tax increase should be casting a vote at tomorrow night's meeting. He identified eight council members with a conflict of interest:

There are several members of the Council who would get a direct benefit from the tax increase. Democrats Monroe Gray, Vernon Brown, Sherron Franklin, Mary Moriarty Adams and Republicans Ike Randolph, Lance Langsford, Lincoln Plowman and Marilyn Pfisterer. All eight members of the Council should abstain from voting because they all have a conflict of interest.

Randolph, Plowman, Langsford and Franklin are either police officers or firefighters and they would get a 12-percent raise (over the next four years) if the tax were implemented because it is the funding source for their contract's salary increases. Moriarty Adams is married to a police officer so she would get a direct benefit. Pfisterer is married to a retired firefighter who gets a direct benefit in the form of a stable pension. And Gray and Brown are department chiefs, and although their salaries are not determined by the contract, they are in policy making positions in the department and should abstain from voting.

Abdul omits Dane Mahern (D), who will benefit indirectly as well as an employee of the City's Department of Administration. Abdul questioned Mayor Peterson this weekend about the members' conflict of interest. "I asked Mayor Bart Peterson yesterday whether public safety officials on the Council should abstain from voting, his reply was that since the ordinance doesn't specifically require revenue be spent on raises, there is no conflict," he writes. "With all due respect, that's a load of "you-know-what" because we all know what the money will be used for, otherwise there's no point in raising the tax." Actually, Mayor Peterson was just being honest. How many times has the council raised taxes in the past to benefit public safety and still come back time and time again asking taxpayers to fork over more to fund what was promised from the earlier tax increases?

On the subject of the tax increase slated for a vote tomorrow night, City-County Councilor Scott Keller continues to raise the ire of his fellow Republicans. He showed up at the Mayor's press conference Saturday to support the budget cuts Peterson belatedly has requested. The Star's Brendan O'Shaughnessy writes today, "Democrats control the council 15-14, but some could waver on increasing taxes in an election year." "Scott Keller, a Republican council member, said he will support the measure." Keller is supporting the re-election of Peterson over the GOP's candidate, Greg Ballard, and he claims to have the support of Peterson for his own re-election. Democrats and Republicans alike have scoffed at Keller's claim of Peterson's support. Moreover, both Democrats and Republican wonder how Peterson could possibly aid Keller's re-election this year. If you study the Star's analysis of the areas hit hardest by this year's property tax reassessments, it includes a significant portion of Keller's district.

I was also reminded by a prominent Democrat that Keller ran four years ago with the support of an anti-tax group over his opponent, then-incumbent Karen Horseman, who he defeated by a handful of votes. To that group's disappointment, Keller has voted for every major tax increase proposal which has come before the council. Some of Keller's closest GOP supporters are distraught over the path he has chosen this election year, and they complain he has not been working the district like he did four years ago. He faces Democrat Brian Mahern, whose well-known name alone is worth at least 45% of the vote in this Democratic-leaning district without lifting a finger. Democrats are delighted Keller is voting for the Mayor's latest tax increase. It means at least one marginal Democrat will get a pass on the tax increase vote.

Now that the GOP loses majority control in the Council, they try to disenfranchise Indianapolis voters by demanding some Democratic councilors not vote thus giving Republicans majority power again. What a devious bunch of sore losers...

Republicans should seriously try to win elections instead of trying to take off the elected representatives of the voters!

SUPPORT ADVANCE INDIANA

It takes many hours of time to publish content for Advance Indiana. If you enjoy reading the content of this blog, please help out by contributing. You can click on the "Make A Donation" button below to support Advance Indiana by using PayPal. Thanks to all of those readers who have made contributions in the past and continue to support this blog with your contributions. If you would rather support the blog using an alternative source of payment or would like to advertise on this blog, e-mail me at gwelsh@indy.rr.com for more information.

Blogflux

Subscribe To

Comment Policy

Advance Indiana allows you to post comments via this blog subject to the guidelines set forth herein. You understand that any comments you post are your own and are not those of Advance Indiana. You further understand that Advance Indiana is not responsible for the content of any external sites referenced in your comments. Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, abusive, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable comments are not acceptable. If you think any content posted or otherwise included in Advance Indiana violates the guidelines set forth herein, then please alert Advance Indiana.
Advance Indiana reserves the right to pre-screen, edit, and remove any post as it deems appropriate. You specifically acknowledge that Advance Indiana has no obligation to display any post submitted or otherwise provided via Advance Indiana.